Kinda sorta
But...is it a real question? Yes I shall hold to it. I have seen Paul attacked. Ya know...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus's teachings corrupted?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Kinda sorta
But...is it a real question? Yes I shall hold to it. I have seen Paul attacked. Ya know...
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Basically there is no proof that the Bible is corrupted.
At most the Bible scholars can agree on just a few insignificant inaccuracies, which does not prove any errors in any doctrines and fundamental teachings, such as Crucifixion of Christ, God, life after death, Judgment Day,,,etc. or the Laws.
loverOfTruth
Well-Known Member
No difference in doctrinal or fundamental teachings ? Nice try.
Here's the different versions about 1 John 5:7
1. 5:7 There are three that bear record in heaven, etc. This verse is not found in the Revised Version or in any ancient MS. It is no doubt an interpolation. [1]
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
[1]http://pnt.biblecommenter.com/1_john/5.htm
2. King James Version (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [2]
[2]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7&version=KJV
3. New International Version (NIV)
5:7 For there are three that testify:
5:8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.[3]
[3]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7&version=NIV
Translators agree that the last part of this verse was added in later and is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from[4]. And this is one of the major verse quoted in support of the doctrine of Trinity.
[4]http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-05.htm
Not to mention that John 1:1 that is widely used to justify Trinity is highly disputed even among different sects of Christianity. If you are interested, you can read more on the above link[4].
Those are just two examples of how different translations/interpolations affect the fundamental teachings of Christianity.
outhouse
Atheistically
I was going to ask that in my reply, atleast a definition of what OP expects, and thought there were other fish to fry here.
and towards OPs post, I dont think there is a credible scholar out there that will not state the bible is mostly the teachings of other men, not jesus.
So yes I would posit all credible scholars would say in a off hand way his teachings were corrupted.
Well, my main point (to the extent I made one) was that if by "famous scholars" we mean those a lot of people know of, there's no point in using them as a yardstick. The reason they tend to be famous tends to be because they interact directly with the public through books more sensationalist than academic, through tv appearences, through internet blogs, etc. The better question to ask is "do well-respected scholars think x?" not do "famous scholars think x?"
And what I said about Crossan and Renan and so forth started out with one intention and ended up with another. Basically, the answer to either "do famous scholars think Jesus' teachings were corrupted?" or "do respected, leading scholars think Jesus' teachings were corrupted?" is "yes". And the reason is (among other things) the nature of our sources.
Thanks. What do you mean by 'corrupted?'
outhouse
Atheistically
really???????????????
the whole book is proof of corruption.
Name one author of any book that knew jesus and heard him teach. they are all unknown authors writing decades after his death by another culture who lived in a different geographic location
ask yourself why jesus a oppressed jew under the roman sword would write a religion for romans. NOT his fellow jews
Jesus was a jew who started a movement only in judaism, based on Johns teachings.
what we are left with is a collection of roman books for romans who worshipped judaism but would not fully convert.
outhouse
Atheistically
dictionary escapes your grasp???
corrupted definition - Bing=
cor·rupt
[ kə rúpt ]
- immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain
- depraved: extremely immoral or depraved
- containing errors: describes computer data or software that is unusable or unreliable because of the presence of errors that have been introduced unintentionally
this part is a home run
especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain
How to account for such insight ...
outhouse
Atheistically
How to account for such insight ...
would you like if I used the term Roman/gentiles?
But its pretty much well known, "God-fearers" are responsible for chrsitianity. Not jews despite Johns and jesus teachings
Its a field of study some have tapped into like Crossan/Reed/Borg but I find it still leaving many unamnswered questions.
Such as did these god-fearers consider themselves jews depite not fully converting, and how widespread were these people, and surely they had different levels of devotion.
The split from judaism was created long before jesus, he was just the match that lit the tinder box.
Name one book by any of them that you've actually read.
outhouse
Atheistically
Name one book by any of them that you've actually read.
quit avoiding the context of the debate for attacking the messenger, my information stands correct on this.
and it doesnt matter which parts of these books i have read. I have enough of the knowledge they passed on for this topic.
and in the end they only carry opinions, not facts. I dont agree with everything each has written, but respect a large portion of their work
Name one book by any of them that you've actually read.
That's what ancient history is: the more detailed a historian's account is, the more speculation is involved. For Jesus, our central source is four biography/history-type of documents which (like all historiography of the time, but especially those most similar to the gospels) are not about getting "just the facts, ma'am" but are stories about the past or a person. We don't know exactly when they were written, we don't know who wrote them, we don't know what those who wrote them knew about Jesus or how exactly they knew it, and we know that in some way three of the gospels are interdependent (virtually every single biblical scholar believes this interdependence can only be properly explained via the two-source hypothesis: matthew and luke used mark and another source common two both which consisted of numerous sayings of Jesus and is called "q").
So how do we go about trying to seperate fact from fiction? We start by trying to first understand the socio-cultural setting in which Jesus lived, and also the socio-cultural setting or settings the gospel authors did. We analyze the texts to try to determine clues about when they were written, and compare them to other sources we have (e.g., the Pauline corpus) to help with this. And most of all we try to get a sense of how the people who followed Jesus and/or listened to his teachings connect with the gospels. For example, did a bunch of people just start telling stories which became increasingly altered, exaggerated, changed, etc., by constant re-tellings? Or did Jesus' closest followers memorize his teachings, and ensure that their followers learned these teachings and the stories about Jesus in an accurate way? And even if this "oral transmission" of sayings and stories about Jesus was fairly accurately transmitted, how do we determine which parts were or were not? And, as any expert on eyewitness testimony will inform you, when different people see the same thing (a crime, a miracle, a car accident, etc.) their accounts don't agree. So even if Jesus repeated the same teachings over and over again, and these were memorized by his followers and accurately related, a lot of teaching in the gospels are set in the context of some event, which by its very nature can't be repeated. And even if Jesus' followers ensured that some "fixed" form of these stories was learned by new followers, that doesn't change the problem of the initial accuracy of whatever versions were told at the time by different witnesses.
In short, trying to figure out how to judge the general accuracy of the traditon behind the gospels is hard enough, but trying to understand which parts of the gospels correspond to something Jesus actually said or did is even more difficult.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you hold the position that it was solely the Romans who crucified Christ? It seems you're comments rely on this idea.
Is there a reputable Biblical scholar who shares this opinion?
outhouse
Atheistically
Most credible scholars do claim romans killed him, since he died a roman death. With that said, he may not have even had a trial as reported in the bible. its unlikely Pilate or Caiaphas even took the time to deal with a reble peasant durimg passover.
the Saducees were under direct roman influence, and they were working hand in hand with the romans.
who was the leader in the temple? Caiaphas a roman appointed leader
outhouse
Atheistically
deal with the material in the thread first
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
I agree that there are errors in the translations of Bible. Surely there are additions of comments and interpretations to the Translations, But that does not prove the Text of Bible in original languages are corrupted.
Do you believe that all the Translations of Quran are perfect? is there any translations of Quran that one can claim is without error? I don't think so.
Regarding Trinity, that is widely known to be an addition of a church. It is not in the Bible original language.
The Bible is clear regarding oneness of God, and the station of Jesus.
outhouse
Atheistically
how can someone write something accurate???
when they dindt know or hear the man teach?
when they didnt belong to that culture?
when they didnt even live where the man lived?
when men wrote most everything to do with theology in mythology
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
They believe the Book is inspired by God, meaning that the Authors of Bible were inspired by God, then they wrote it. This belief is no different than the belief in the existance of God who is powerfull to reveal His Words by inspiring men.